DOCSLIB.ORG

LOWER CLARK FORK RIVER FISHERY ASSESSMENT Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LOWER CLARK FORK RIVER FISHERY ASSESSMENT Project LOWER CLARK FORK RIVER FISHERY ASSESSMENT Project Completion Report Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Program Prepared by: Robert Ryan Regional Fisheries Biologist Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Robert Jakubowski Natural Resources Technician Avista Corporation May, 2012 Lower Clark Fork River Fishery Assessment Lower Clark Fork River Fishery Assessment ................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 2 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 15 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................... 16 i ABSTRACT A new minimum flow in the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam in Idaho was negotiated in 1999 as part of Avista Corporation’s relicensing agreement for Cabinet Gorge Dam. Minimum instream flow was increased from 84.9 cms to 141.5 cms. Increased minimum flows were hypothesized to increase the availability of rearing habitat for fish and improve foraging conditions by providing more stable habitat conditions for aquatic invertebrates. Subsequent effects of these changes were expected to include increased abundance of target fish, increased proportion of younger age classes of target species, and improved condition of all age classes. To describe the effects of increased minimum flows, fish populations were monitored between 1999 and 2008 in a 6.6 km reach of the lower Clark Fork River. Targeted species in the monitoring program included brown trout Salmo trutta, mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, and westslope cutthroat trout O. clarkii lewisi. Assessment focused on monitoring changes in abundance, size structure, and condition of fish populations in the affected area. Abundance of target species was estimated during annual monitoring efforts using mark recapture techniques. Relative abundance (catch per unit effort (CPUE)) of all species was estimated during fall sampling events. Size structure of sampled target species was compared by sample year using structural indices including proportional stock density and quality stock density. Physical condition of target species was evaluated by estimating mean relative weights. Estimated abundance of mountain whitefish ranged from 3,717 to 9,029 over the study period. Brown trout, rainbow trout (includes rainbow trout hybrids), and westslope cutthroat trout abundance estimates ranged from 76 to 356 fish per species, in the study area over the ten year period. No significant changes or trends in relative abundance were detected for any of the target species. Native non-game fishes including northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis, redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus, peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus, and largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus were the most common fishes sampled. Trends in structural indices were generally positive except brown trout quality stock density. Significant trends were only observed in mountain whitefish proportional stock densities and rainbow trout quality stock densities. Mean relative weights of westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish were consistently above 80 while brown trout were consistently near or below 80. No significant linear relationships were observed between year and relative weight. Results suggested abundance, size structure, and condition of fish populations in the lower Clark Fork River were largely unchanged following increases in minimum flow below Cabinet Gorge Dam. ii INTRODUCTION An agreement reached with Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) in 1973 provided for a 3,000 cfs minimum flow below Cabinet Gorge Dam. That agreement was based on field assessments of the river at varying flows, electrical generating requirements, a review of historic low-flow records, and the earlier recommendation for a minimum flow of the same amount made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). However, minimum flow in the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam was still one issue of concern to the local stakeholders involved in a collaborative relicensing process conducted by Avista Corporation (Avista; formerly Washington Water Power (WWP)) for Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids dams. Avista relicensed these two hydroelectric facilities on the Clark Fork River in Idaho and Montana in 1999 and the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA) was the product of the collaborative relicensing process (Avista 1999). Cabinet Gorge Dam is located just inside the Idaho border and Noxon Rapids Dam is located approximately 32 km upstream in Montana (Figure 1). A new minimum flow was negotiated for Cabinet Gorge Dam as part of the relicensing agreement, which increased the base flow from 84.9 cms (3,000 cfs) to 141.5 cms (5,000 cfs) (Avista 1999, see Appendix T). The objective of the increased minimum flow was to increase the amount of permanently wetted river habitat to benefit the aquatic resources of the Clark Fork River. More specifically, the objectives were to reduce the range of depth and velocity fluctuations in the river, and reduce varial zone and bar dewatering to increase stability of shoreline rearing areas for fish and enhance microinvertebrate production. Photo documentation was used to estimate the minimum flow needed to provide a meaningful increase in permanently wetted perimeter of the Clark Fork River (Beak 1997). Cabinet Gorge Dam is operated as a load following facility, with daily flow fluctuations ranging from 84.9 cms (3,000 cfs) to 1,010.3 cms (35,700 cfs) prior to the increased minimum discharge. Following the increase of minimum flow, generation capabilities were increased and daily flow fluctuations ranged from 141.5 cms (5,000 cfs) to 1076 cms (38,000 cfs). In addition to increasing minimum flows in the Clark Fork River, Avista and IDFG completed a restoration project in 2001 to provide perennial flow through the approximately 2 km-long Foster Bar side-channel to enhance fish habitat. This involved lowering several hydraulic control points within the side-channel so that water would flow through the side-channel over the range of discharges from Cabinet Gorge Dam. Prior to relicensing, when discharge from Cabinet Gorge Dam dropped below approximately 311.3 cms (11,000 cfs), the side-channel would become a series of un-connected pools. This reconnection was anticipated to provide valuable off-channel spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids, which is in limited supply in the Idaho reach of the Clark Fork River. To assess the effectiveness of changes in minimum flow and channel alteration, a ten-year monitoring program was conducted from 1999 through 2008. Increasing minimum flows from 84.9 cms to 141.5 cms was hypothesized to increase the availability of rearing habitat for fish and improve foraging conditions by providing more stable conditions for aquatic invertebrates. In addition, consistent flow and channel improvements in the Foster side-channel were expected to provide additional spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids. Subsequent impacts of these changes were hypothesized to increase abundance of target fish, increase the proportion of younger age classes of target species, and improve condition of all age classes. Assessment of 1 these two possible actions focused on monitoring changes in abundance, size structure, and condition of fish populations in the affected area. Limited quantitative information existed relative to the fishery resources of the Clark Fork River in Idaho prior to this study and prior to influences of hydropower facilities on the lower Clark Fork River. Several studies have investigated river use by adfluvial fish from Lake Pend Oreille (LPO), as well as the fish community composition (Heimer 1965, Anderson 1978, WWP 1995 and 1996). Avista, in preparation for their hydropower license renewal, conducted investigations into relative abundance of fish species present in the Clark Fork River in Idaho (WWP 1995 and 1996). The information contained in these Avista reports adds to our baseline knowledge of fish populations in the Clark Fork River. In combination, the earlier Avista work and the first several years of this investigation formed the baseline from which the effects of the increased minimum flow were judged. Required monitoring of the impacts of increased minimum flow below Cabinet
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FERC Project No. 2058
    FERC Project No. 2058 Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Appendix A As approved by the Management Committee on 3/14/2017 2017 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY – APPENDIX A Clark Fork Project, FERC No. 2058 Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Developments Title Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Implementation Staff Lead Ken Bouwens, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, (208) 770-3766, [email protected] Background The purpose of this program is to offset the impacts of the power peaking operation of the Cabinet Gorge Project to native salmonids through the restoration and enhancement of lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille (LPO) tributary watersheds, fishery monitoring and management support, and a public education and enforcement initiative focused on Bull Trout and their associated habitats in Idaho. Outlined below is the 2017 annual implementation plan for Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement and Fish Resource Monitoring, Enhancement, and Management portions of this program. The public education and enforcement component of this program is described in Appendix D of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA). In addition, other CFSA appendices also support watershed and native salmonid protection, restoration, and enhancement (e.g., Fish Passage/Native Salmonid Restoration Plan, Watershed Council Program), and thereby augment the efforts to be initiated under this program. 2017 Project Plans Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Fund 1. Habitat Restoration Scoping Allocation 2. Idaho Land Conservation Strategy 3. Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Allocation 4. Grouse Creek Resurvey 5. Lightning Creek Large Woody Debris and Recruitment Project 6. Twin Creek Restoration Revegetation 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Plan for Bull Trout in the Clark Fork River Basin and Kootenai River Basin Montana
    RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN MONTANA Prepared by: MONTANA BULL TROUT RESTORATION TEAM FOR GOVERNOR MARC RACICOT c/o Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 JUNE 2000 RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN, MONTANA This restoration plan for bull trout in Montana was developed collaboratively by, and is supported by, the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, appointed by Governor Marc Racicot. Restoration Team members represented the organizations listed below. All parties to this restoration plan recognize that they each have specific statutory responsibilities that cannot be abdicated, particularly with respect to the management and conservation of fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the management, development and allocation of land and water resources. Nothing in this plan is intended to abrogate any of the parties' respective responsibilities. Each party has final approval authority for any activities undertaken as a result of this agreement on the lands owned or administered by them. The Restoration Plan was developed by the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, represented by the following organizations and agencies (arranged in alphabetical order by agency/organization): American Fisheries Society Bonneville Power Administration Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation National
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 2018 Noxon Emergency Services Building
    Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 2018 Noxon Emergency Services Building WRTAC Representatives Attendees: Avista – Eric Oldenburg Bull River Watershed Council – Kathy Ferguson Idaho Department of Fish and Game – Ken Bouwens Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) – Ryan Kreiner Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality – Randy Apfelbeck Noxon-Cabinet Shoreline Coalition – Rick Robinson Panhandle Chapter Trout Unlimited – Bill Love U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Kevin Aceituno U.S. Forest Service (USFS) – Doug Grupenhoff Other Attendees: Avista – Nate Hall, Shana Bernall, Lisa Vollertsen, Susan Drumheller, and Sean Moran; Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group – Brita Olson; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks – Jason Blakney and Mike Hensler (showed up at 10:28). General Updates: • Consent mails: o One consent mail was approved since the spring Management Committee (MC) meeting. This consent mail was for $10,000 to conduct a LiDAR survey of the future stream restoration site up Crow Creek as well as to provide $10,000 additional dollars for the Prospect Creek PIT tag array. • Budget Update o Eric discussed a correction regarding funding of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Experimental Passage project during 2017. There were no concerns from the group. • 2019 project plans and annual work summaries o Project plans for 2019 are due to Avista on November 1. If you have a new project you would like to propose for next year you need to be working with the appropriate Program Leader so that deadline can be met. Project plan guidelines will be sent to the Program Leaders within the next couple weeks. The 2018 Annual Work Summary guidelines will also be sent to the Program Leaders in a couple of weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITY AT THE CABINET GORGE DAM CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No. 2058-098 Idaho and Montana Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...................................... 2 1.3.1 Clean Water Act ................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hat00-16Doerr1999 Resident Fish Hatcheries Annual Report
    1999 ANNUAL RESIDENT HATCHERIES REPORT February 2000 IDFG 00-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 AMERICAN FALLS HATCHERY .................................................................................................. 3 ASHTON HATCHERY .................................................................................................................. 9 CABINET GORGE HATCHERY ................................................................................................. 15 CLARK FORK HATCHERY ........................................................................................................ 28 CLEARWATER HATCHERY ...................................................................................................... 37 GRACE HATCHERY .................................................................................................................. 45 HAGERMAN HATCHERY .......................................................................................................... 53 HAYSPUR HATCHERY.............................................................................................................. 65 MACKAY HATCHERY ................................................................................................................76 MCCALL HATCHERY................................................................................................................. 85 MULLAN HATCHERY................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project
    Early Information Development: Fish Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Prepared for: Seattle City Light Seattle, Washington Prepared by: R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Redmond, Washington November 2006 EARLY INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: FISH CONNECTIVITY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Project Description............................................................................................. 1-2 2 Potential Habitat Connectivity ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Adfluvial Fish Habitat within Boundary Reservoir............................................ 2-4 2.2. Status of Fish Passage and Adfluvial Fish Habitat at other Pend Oreille River Projects ............................................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.1. Waneta .................................................................................................. 2-8 2.2.2. Seven Mile............................................................................................ 2-8 2.2.3. Box Canyon........................................................................................ 2-10 2.2.4. Albeni Falls......................................................................................... 2-12 2.2.5. Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PPL and Avista Vs. State of Montana
    MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY ['PI. MONTAN.1, LL.C, a Delaware limitcd Cause NO. CDV-2004-846 liability corporation, and AVIS'T,Z CORI'OKrZTION, a Washington corporation, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON Plaintiffs, THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE MISSOURI, .MADISON v. AND CLARK FORK RIVERS Defendant. Defendant and Counterclaimant State of Montana (State) has moved for partial summary judgment on liability and for Rule 37 expenses. The State's motion is in two parts: 1) that the Missouri, Madison and Clark Fork Rivers are navigable rivers and that the State owns the streambeds to those rivers; and 2) that the streambeds are part of the State's school trust lands. ., , . Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Avista Corpor ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL SE~MBER14,2007 EXHIBIT 1s for partial summary judgment, contending that the Clark Fork River is not a navigable river and that title did not pass to the State upon statehood. In addition, Avista and Plaintiff and Counterdefendant PPL Montana, LLC (PPL), have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the streambeds are school trust lands. The motions were heard December 14, 2006. This Order addresses only the navigability of the rivers. By separate orders, the Court will address the question of whether the riverbeds are school trust lands and whether the State is entitled to Rule 37 expenses. BACKGROUND Avista is a Washington State corporation registered to do business in Montana, w~thits principal place of business in Spokane, Washington, and PPL is a Delaware limited liab~litycorporation registered to do business in Montana (collectively referred to as "the Utilities").
    [Show full text]
  • Past, Present, and Future Fishery Management in Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Reservoirs
    Past, Present, and Future Fishery Management in Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Reservoirs Scott S. Rumsey and Joe E. Huston Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Kalispell. MT 59901 Abstract Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs are run-of-the-river hydroelectric impoundments on the Clark Fork River in western Montana. Operations at Noxon Rapids Reservoir changed in 1961 and 1978. The first change in operations increased average annual spring drawdown from less than 10 to more than 30 feet. The second eliminated drawdowns of more than 6 feet, except for unusual power demands. Establishment and maintenance of a satisfactory sport fishery has been largely unsuccessful in both reservoirs since the 1950's. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) exhibited potential from 1958 through 1960 when they produced an excellent fishery, followed by a dramatic decline in 1961. Continued planting of rainbow trout never reestablished a substantial fishery. Other fish species planted produced similar results with the exception of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), which presently provide a modest fishery. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were present prior to impoundment and appear to be increasing. Operation changes, combined with the brief retention times, have encouraged the downstream movement of most introduced salmonids in Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs. Introduction Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs are two run-of-the-river hydro- electric impoundments on the Clark Fork River in western Montana (fig. 1). Both dams are owned and operated by Washington Water Power Company of Spokane, Washington. The company has provided the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks with funds and personnel for ongoing fishery projects since construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Clark Fork Project Recreation Resource Management Plan
    Clark Fork Project Recreation Resource Management Plan Interim Update July 2017 Clark Fork Project Recreation Resource Management Plan Interim Update July 2017 Prepared for Avista Utilities Noxon, MT Prepared by Pinnacle Research & Consulting Plains, MT Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background of the Recreation Resource Management Plan ................................................................ 5 3 Process for the RRMP Interim Update .................................................................................................. 6 4 Recreation Project Work List: 2016-2030 ............................................................................................. 7 5 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 10 6 Recreation Programs .......................................................................................................................... 14 7 Recreation Use and Visitation Trends................................................................................................. 22 8 Recreation Site Work History: 2000 – 2016 ........................................................................................ 36 9 Recreation Site Operation and Maintenance Activities: 2000 – 2016................................................ 48 10 Limits of Acceptable Change Monitoring and Recreation
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Aquatic Plant Control for Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs, Montana: an Adaptive Management Plan
    Invasive Aquatic Plant Control for Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs, Montana: An Adaptive Management Plan KD Getsinger, PhD Environmental Laboratory US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg, MS JD Madsen, PhD US Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research Unit University of California – Davis Davis, CA G Turnage Mississippi State University Geosystem Research Institute Starkville, MS J Badger Montana State University Sanders County Extension Unit Thompson Falls, MT Prepared for: Sanders County Aquatic Invasive Plants Task Force Thompson Falls, MT Geosystems Research Institute Report # 5074 April 2017 2 CONTENTS Preface……………………………………………………………………………………….4 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….. 5 List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………….7 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Background…………………………………………………………………………........ 9 Noxon Rapids Reservoir………………………………………………………............9 Cabinet Gorge Reservoir……………………………………………………………...9 Aquatic Plant Communities in the Reservoirs…………………………………...........9 Aquatic Plant Management Efforts: 2009-2014…………………………………….......11 Objectives……………………………………………………………………………….12 2 Development of an Adaptive Management Plan…………………………………..…12 Overview………………………………………………………………………………..12 Problem Assessment………………………………………………………………........13 Recommendations……………………………………………………………….......13 Project Management……………………………………………………………………14 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………...14 Management Goals………………………………………………………………….....14
    [Show full text]
  • The Keystone of Water Rights Law Presents and Faces Challenges in a Populated West
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2010 FIRST IN RIGHT: THE KEYSTONE OF WATER RIGHTS LAW PRESENTS AND FACES CHALLENGES IN A POPULATED WEST Laura L. Lundquist The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Lundquist, Laura L., "FIRST IN RIGHT: THE KEYSTONE OF WATER RIGHTS LAW PRESENTS AND FACES CHALLENGES IN A POPULATED WEST" (2010). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 452. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/452 This Professional Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FIRST IN RIGHT: THE KEYSTONE OF WATER RIGHTS LAW PRESENTS AND FACES CHALLENGES IN A POPULATED WEST By LAURA LEE LUNDQUIST M.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1995 B.S., Aerospace Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, 1985 Professional Paper presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Journalism - Print The University of Montana Missoula, Montana May 2010 Approved by: Perry Brown, Associate Provost for Graduate Education Graduate School Dennis Swibold, Chair School of Journalism Nadia White School of Journalism David Shively Department of Geography Lundquist, Laura, M.A., Spring 2010 Print Journalism Troubled waters: Population pressures pose challenges for city water supplies and Montana‘s water law Chair: Dennis Swibold With fewer than a million people, Montana is one of the last states to tackle some problems that accompany population growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Hat97-13Doerr1996 Resident Fish Hatcheries Annual Report
    1996 ANNUAL RESIDENT HATCHERIES REPORT May 1997 IDFG 97-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 AMERICAN FALLS HATCHERY.......................................................................... 3 ASHTON HATCHERY.......................................................................................... 9 CABINET GORGE HATCHERY........................................................................... 21 CLARK FORK HATCHERY.................................................................................. 32 CLEARWATER HATCHERY................................................................................ 41 GRACE HATCHERY............................................................................................ 47 HAGERMAN HATCHERY.................................................................................... 60 HAYSPUR HATCHERY ....................................................................................... 75 KOOTENAI HATCHERY ...................................................................................... 89 MACKAY HATCHERY ......................................................................................... 126 MCCALL HATCHERY.......................................................................................... 132 MULLAN HATCHERY.......................................................................................... 147 NAMPA HATCHERY...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]